Posted on 12/20/2004 5:45:44 PM PST by wagglebee
CANDIDATES for sainthood will be exonerated from the requirement to have performed a miracle under guidelines being considered by the Pope.
Already under fire from some Roman Catholics for running a “saint factory”, the Pope is preparing to overturn a centuries-old rule that candidates for canonisation must have performed “medically inexplicable” posthumous miracles.
The Pope, 84, has created 482 saints in his 26 years as pontiff — more than all his predecessors put together — and has beatified 1,337 people. He believes that “latter-day saints” offer a much-needed example at a time when Christianity is under threat from secularism and rival religions.
Abolishing the need for miracles would speed up the canonisation of some of the Pope’s favourite candidates, including Mother Teresa of Calcutta, who was beatified last year. It could also revive plans to beatify Robert Schuman, the French-born founder of the EU, shelved earlier this year because of lack of evidence that anyone had been cured after praying to him.
The Pope last streamlined the beatification and canonisation process in 1983, when he decreed that martyrs — those killed for their faith — could be beatified without the need for a certifiable miracle.
Yesterday Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Archbishop of Genoa, disclosed that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Pope’s ideologial “enforcer” for two decades, had presented a formula for the abolition of the “the miracle clause” to the Pope. Cardinal Bertone said that there was a growing feeling in the Vatican that the need for miracles for both beatification and canonisation was “anachronistic”.
At present, candidates for beatification, which confers the title “Blessed” and is the penultimate step before sainthood, must be shown to have performed at least one miracle after death by curing the terminally ill in response to prayers of intercession. For sainthood, evidence of at least two miracles is required. Claims of miraculous cures are examined by a panel of five medical experts at the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, a Vatican body.
The panel, drawn from a pool of a hundred doctors and specialists, must conclude that the cure was “sudden, complete and permanent” and had no scientific explanation. Cardinal Bertone said what mattered was not whether saints had performed miracles but whether they had displayed “heroic virtues” and led an exemplary Christian life.
Il Secolo XIX, the Genoa newspaper, said the proposed “revolution in saintmaking” would upset traditionalists who regarded miracles as “one of the cornerstones of the Catholic faith”.
You said that I was suggesting that one had to be a sedevacantist or someone who buys into the "new, counterfeit theology". In other words, that you could be outside and have the Catholic Faith, or inside and accept the "new, counterfeit theology" instead. Of course, I actually said no such thing.
Yet another attempt at the same thing.
I think this is a good thing -- saints are heroes of the faith, the miracle thing is a secondary issue
But I already stated to the effect that, no, of course you won't openly state such a thing.
It is, however, the net effect of your posts, and your whole style for that matter. I believe that to be the objective.
Wrong.
Did the Holy Spirit safeguard Mahony when he wrote an heretical document claiming the Eucharist is present in the assembly? Even Mother Angelica had a problem with it. How about when he ruled there was no liturgical abuse going on in his diocese despite PICTURES to the contrary?
Was the Holy Spirit present when Mahony built his pagan temple complete with an inverted pentagram roof, a snake winding through the children's garden and sheep dogs about to attack the sheep?
Is the Holy Spirit present every time Kasper opens his mouth to utter yet another heretical statement?
Was the Holy Spirit present when the Pope kissed the Koran, a book which commands our slaughter as infidels?
Was the Holy Spirit present when the Magisterium claimed the Jews no longer need convert to be saved?
Do you call all of the above adherence to the Catholic Faith?
pascendi is right. You make a great case for sedevacantism.
You believe wrongly.
The Magisterium, the sacred teaching office of the Church, was not exercised in any incident that you mention. In fact, it is exercised when a judgment is given to the whole Church by the Pontiff, a Council confirmed by the Pontiff, or the ordinary universal magisterium, in which case it is binding upon all and cannot be debated (see Pius XII, Humani generis 18-21, Bl. Pius IX, Tuas Libenter).
Was the Holy Spirit present when the Magisterium claimed the Jews no longer need convert to be saved?
Since it has never claimed this, no. He was, however, present when the Magisterium condemned this thesis of no Jewish conversion: "it would be contrary to the faith to consider the Church as one way of salvation alongside those constituted by the other religions, seen as complementary to the Church or substantially equivalent to her ... followers of other religions ... are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation." (Dominus Iesus 21-22).
Right, the fine line between material and formal heresy. Talk a good game on paper then do what you like in practice.
These guys are good. The modernism is difficult to detect even for the pros.
BTW, those weren't strawmen. Those were actual questions which you conveniently sidestepped. The point is, THE MAGISTERIUM NO LONGER HOLDS TO THE CATHOLIC FAITH. What will it take to get through to you? Will Antichrist himself show up and find a supporter in you because "the Magisterium can never err?"
Like I said, I hope so.
You are right. One minute every sneeze from the hierarchy is infallible, then the next minute the definition is narrowed to sidestep the heresy. It's a no-win game.
This is what liberals do. When they can't find candidates to measure up, they change the rules.
Journet is not an infallible source. Theologians are NOT unanimous that canonizations are infallible. The Catholic Encyclopedia merely states only that "most" theologians support this view. And St. Thomas states it is something "to be piously believed." (But then again, Thomas never lived during the pontificate of JPII.)
Sure miracles are "anachronistic"--to those who don't believe in them. Which may be why Kasper was made a cardinal. He openly doubted the historicity of Gospel miracles. Didn't much bother the Pope--who not only canonizes the unholy, but awards red hat to the heretical.
I nominate GWB and Laura for sainthood. The vilification they have put up with defies all reason.
Nice try. But the citation is a pious statement only, not always true. Many popes fell into material heresy, about forty, according to Vatican I.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.